Sunday, October 03, 2010

Thousands of people are mourning the death of Mr Clementi, an 18 year old college student who committed suicide after being taunted about his homosexuality.

I wonder how many people are mourning the deaths of straight people infected with HIV by homosexual men.

Imagine for a moment that you had a twenty eight year old daughter. She is diagnosed with AIDS and tuberculosis and is expected to soon die. Her husband and her two small children, have tested HIV positive. Researching into this, it turns out that when she was 18, your daughter had unprotected sex with an 18 year old boy. That boy unknown to her was HIV positive after having had unprotected anal sex with a man who, unknown to the boy, was HIV positive. Such tragedies can and do happen in America and Europe today.

If we would follow the Torah's commandment to put to death any man who has anal sex with another man, those tradegies could be prevented.

166 comments:

All of the victims of the holocaust could have been prevented had all Germans been exterminated in WW1.

Smoking deaths would be prevented if we just exterminate all tobacco growers and companies.

Not to mention that your tears for the "tragedy" of the 28 year old daughter, would be trumped by the need to execute at least several hundred thousand gay men in America alone. (along with the millions of others of apostates, prostitutes, and adulterers which the torah would require). You would probably have to execute about a quarter of the American adult population.

Kind of a dumb post, IMHI

Of course the major logical fallacy here is the all or nothing dichotomy, which ignores the many other effective (and less cruel) methods of preventing the spread of HIV...

Actually probably very few gay people would need to be killed. Look at Saudi Arabia. Very few executions, very little HIV. Actually, until 40 or 50 years ago Americans seemed to function quite well with virtually no sodomy, which was illegal.

Gay rights is a favorite topic for atheists because first of all, it implies a rejection of the Bible, which is always good. Secondly, it involves defending a weak minority group, giving atheists a nice glow of self righteousness. If millions of lives are lost, I guess that's just collateral damage.

"Suddenly you're a humanitarian, concerned with the plight of hapless heterosexual victims?"

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, shedding tears over a sexual pervert and murderer (suicide is murder) however oddly indifferent to millions of completely innocent victims of diseases spread by homosexuals.

It's well known that a disproportionate number of male homosexuals are seriously ill, alcoholics, drug addicts, depressed and suicidal. The atheistic celebration of homosexuality is merely a part of the atheistic cult of death.

"Actually probably very few gay people would need to be killed. Look at Saudi Arabia. Very few executions, very little HIV. Actually, until 40 or 50 years ago Americans seemed to function quite well with virtually no sodomy, which was illegal."

JP you should know the majority of muslims hate Saudi and other arab dictators and are actively working to dismantle them. So you can't really use Saudi as an example of the ideal the muslim world has in mind.

It is true however that muslim countries have the world's lowest proportion of STDs, even lower than western countries, and have done so without contraception and condoms for the most part. And have completed avoided the mass starvation, economic collapse and poverty that has stricken so many African countries because of their traditional conservative values on sexuality and marriage.

"Gay rights is a favorite topic for atheists because first of all, it implies a rejection of the Bible, which is always good. Secondly, it involves defending a weak minority group, giving atheists a nice glow of self righteousness. If millions of lives are lost, I guess that's just collateral damage."

Oh really? I can think of a lot of reasons people would reject the Bible, disagreements with its sexual norms hardly being the first on anyone's list. Most people go OTD because of the genocides, the fictious creation myth, the orthodox lifestyle, or because of corruption in rabbanical circles.

And how does a homosexual committing suicide turn into a post about straight rights? How are you as a straight person affected by it? You are not being denied the right to marry or legally have children as a heterosexual, but gay people are.

When you get your job as a nurse, it won't be long before you're fired for your your murderous objective to exterminate homosexuals. But don't blame me for reporting your odious desires to your employer. Hashem would not permit your torment if you were not deserving of it. You got fired from your last job because you must have have really pissed him off. Your family will hate you even more than hashem does. But don't blame me, I'm on a mission from god.

Not like homosexuals, but more like chareidi Motty Borger who committed suicide on his wedding night. Like him, your parents probably abused you also when you were a kid. You should emulate him and zap the demons that infest your mind. But don't bother spending whatever little savings you have left on a the top floor of a pricey hotel for your jump. The Empire State building will do just fine. Your family will be so relieved when you do yourelf in.

"I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, shedding tears over a sexual pervert and murderer (suicide is murder) however oddly indifferent to millions of completely innocent victims of diseases spread by homosexuals."

No hypocrisy. Firstly, I couldn't care less about a gay person I don't know who kills himself. If I knew him, gay or not, I would care. Secondly, people killed by diseases, of whatever origin, is an accident, whereby willfully killing gays for their lifestyle is murder. (I'm not talking about somebody who knowingly infects somebody else-- that is a crime)

There are many victims of drunken drivers. That doesn't mean that all people who drink wine are murderers and should be killed.

Basic ethical distinction, which you appear to be incapable of making. [I would guess that you are a psychopath, am I right?]

It has nothing to do with my atheism or whatever. Its just basic logic and abiliity to make distinctions.

"I'm sure no one would suggest that they were psychopathic murderers."

Like Moses. Like Joshua. Like David. The list of psychopathic murderers venerated in Judaism is admirable.

One does not need to be an Atheist to mourn the suicide of a teenager that you so casually label a pervert. You yourself have been accused of inappropriate behavior. You probably, and rightly, lost your previous job because of it.

How interesting that atheists are worried about ancient wars which they in any case consider fictional, while aren't bothered about men who through their filthy habits are spreading fatal diseases today.

Personally, I am bothered about the spread of disease. There are all sort of "filthy habits" that people have which spread disease, sometimes fatal disease.

People don't cover their mouths when they cough and sneeze. People eat too much processed food and don't exercise. People smoke cigarettes. People use poor hygiene after using the bathroom. People contaminate meat and fish. People pollute. People choose not to vaccinate their children.

You focus on sexual habits of a select group. You fetishize about homosexual men and the things they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

We can combat the spread of disease through education, medicine, and research. Ancient prescriptions, usually cherry picked, have no bearing or weight on on matters. No one cares what your cult thinks about the bible and its mores. The bible is irrelevant. It doesn't help and never has.

We cannot live by the bible now and we never ever could. A society based totally on the bible is impossible and would be completely immoral by today's standards. The bible's time is done. Just let it go already.

By any objective measure--longevity, health, prosperity, likelihood to be a victim of violence or disease, Americans are far better off then they were 100 years ago. 50 years ago they were dying by the thousands in Vietnam.

What "golden period" exactly are you talking about?

I love how fanatics like you pretend that there was some ideal time in the past when everything was great and people had values.

In the scenario I was describing, the woman was unaware she was HIV positive because she never saw a reason to be tested until AIDS develop.

What fascinates me is that so many people are in an uproar concerning this suicide, while no one seems to worry too much about heterosexual AIDS victims, a disease which would never have become widespread if not for gay liberation.

Concerning the idea that anyone who advocates a death penalty for sodomy is a psychopathic murderer, then apparently most Americans 200 years ago were psychopathic murderers.

"so many people are in an uproar concerning this suicide, while no one seems to worry too much about heterosexual AIDS victims, a disease which would never have become widespread if not for gay liberation.

The point is that religion is (1) factually wrong, (2) a harmful addiction for many people, (3) a vehicle for irrational social and political policy, (4) an impediment to the welfare of a pluralistic republic and world, and (5) a tax drain on the public.

JP's post is called "straight rights." Just what rights are being denied straight people? Can straight people not get married, not get insurance, not get burial plots together? Are straight people ostracized? Are straight people not the default representation of "normal" on TV and in movies? Are straight people targets for bullies and bigots?

No. So what are the rights you want? I don't get it, since your little AIDS-fantasy was all about people being irresponsible. Maybe you want straight girls to be sexually promiscuous and reckless without risk? Are these the big rights you want? You hope that maybe some girl will take you up on your offer for "do you like cock?" and you won't have to worry about getting an (or maybe another) STD?

Bleh. All you fundies are a repressed bunch. You know, though,it seems invariably that anti-gay = gay. The anti-gay politician solicits gay sex in a bathroom. The anti-gay clergyman rents a houseboy. We see this all the time. JP, have you ever considered that just maybe you yourself are sexually attracted to other men sometimes? Really, it's nothing to be ashamed about. David and Jonathan were probably lovers. Just accept yourself for who you are already and close down this silly blog of yours.

"NLG, can you cite one example of a primarily atheistic community which had a fairly ....."

Another red herring alert.

JP, your post is what I call "crybaby" politics. It turns the perpetrator into the victim and vice versa. Boo Hoo. As NLG said, its a little difficult to feel pity for those poor heterosexuals whose rights are violated.

If so, does he agree with this POV? I'd be interested in knowing who he is, since the Orthodox (including Haredi) rabbis that I know all hold very different views.

If not, why would someone who purports to be an Orthodox Jew not consult a rav before posting statements regarding Jewish law? Aseh l'cha rav, as it says in Pirkei Avot.

In Judaism, we don't just draw conclusions from a surface reading of Leviticus. We need to study Talmud and the later rabbinic sources as well. You should know this. According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin), the death penalty could only be imposed after a trial in front of 23 judges of the Sanhedrin. Circumstantial evidence was not enough - you had to have at least 2 adult male eyewitnesses who witnessed the offence, and those eyewitnesses also had to warm the accused that he was doing something that could incur the death penalty. As a result, the death penalty was almost never imposed, and the Mishnah goes on to state that the power was ceased with the destruction of the Temple in the year 70.

As a future nurse, how would you treat someone who was gay and/or who had HIV?

How do you feel about those tragic cases where people who were infected through tainted blood transfusions inadvertantly passed on the HIV virus? Would you kill them too? What about IV drug users?

Why do you not mention the millions of women and children in Africa who are dying of AIDS? The toll of the disease there far exceeds its spread in North America, and lack of medicines and proper medical care means that it is far deadlier. It is also a heterosexual disease there. Does that make it better in your mind?

NLG just finished ranting about how awful monotheism is. However his alternative would be an amoral, hedonistic world where one half would massacre the other, the survivors would have no kids and that would be that.

You didn't answer the question that was asked. You can be honest: do you have homosexual attractions?

I realize it's a personal question. You can say "no comment" if you like. But as I said, very often anti-gay = gay. I think there's legitimate reason to wonder if your focus on homosexuality suggests that you have a conflict with your personal sexuality. You are very open with aspects of your life. I don't see why you would not share on this matter.

I think monotheism is pretty awful, but you are not really a monotheist, strictly speaking. I wish for no alternative world. I like the one we have. Eventually, the ancient rituals and superstitions will fade away. Rabbi molestations of children only hasten that process.

"NLG just finished ranting about how awful monotheism is. However his alternative would be an amoral, hedonistic world where one half would massacre the other, the survivors would have no kids and that would be that."

I think that what I and other commentators have shown, is that you use a combination of rhetorical tools and logical fallacies to make arguments that are in essence personal political/religious opinions, which are not subject to rebuttal.

Wrong. If I tell someone that if he drinks a bottle of cyanide he will die that is not false and not a dichotomy.

"logical fallacies"

Where?

NC, my impression of you is that you cannot believe that the modern Western intellectual, academic and scientific community could be so completely wrong about so many things.

The truth is of course they can be.

Five hundred years ago all Western intellectuals believed that Jesus was God. Two thousand years ago they believed that the Roman emperor was a god. A century ago, socialism was widely regarded as a panacea. Today it's some other nonsense, tomorrow it may be something else. Look at the facts, not the authorities or the majority.

whtvr, u have pix of ur kids online and ur address & crap but won't say which school u r at lol... u r a liar, not in a real nursing school at all, prob mail order bible study nursing school, w/degree from yeshivas chachmei kedem.

That's y u r so stupid about evolution, u have no real education, like most ortho black hatters. next time try going to a real uni, then u will actually have to take real courses

First of all, I personally don't read things that don't interest me. I advise you to do the same.

Secondly, I don't know what your religious beliefs are. However, in the course of school and work you are likely to meet many different people with different political and religious views. You may disagree with some. However you might find that sending them hate mail is not necessarily to your benefit. Let's say, for example, you are pro-choice and the person woking next to you has "Abortion is murder" on their car bumper, are you going to send her notes like this?

Now, having said that, I want to point out that I have certain sincerely held religious beliefs. If you feel that those beliefs will make studying together with me, working together in lab, clinical, etc difficult for you then I think this is something which needs to be taken up with the BOCES administration immediately. Perhaps you need to find a different setting.

Thanks for calling me a moron and a meat head. The Halacha is pretty clear about this sort of name-calling, especially to another Jew.

The law does not differentiate between penetration and other forms of sexual contact with minors. Instead child sexual abuse is generally weighted by the degree of violence and injury inflicted.

I did not think you specifically meant penetration, this would be a totally arbitrary distinction from the perspective of the damage done to the child, which is the position of the law as well.

I hardly think this makes me a moron or a meathead. Furthermore, the specific details of the sexual contact in a child sexual abuse case are not widely available, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in the slightest here. There have been countless examples of Rabbi's being convicted of all manner of sexual misconduct, even in the 1st degree (violence/injury). If you choose to believe that a Rabbi has never had sex with a minor, well, your delusional.

Lastly, there has been a horrific level of complacency and covering-up for these d-bags. The Lanner and also Brauer cases are great examples. It is really all pretty much exactly like clergy-sex-abuse in other God cults. Exactly the same from a psychological/sociological perspective.

Reading you personal information I see you have a son. What would happen one day when he is a teenager, he comes up to you and says, "dad, I'm attracted to men". what would you do? Would you say to kill him as well?

Yes, it may be against your religious beliefs to be gay, but condescending them in public (in a demonic manner) is a personal matter, not a religious one. With all due respect, I am now curious to know if all Jews are as heretic as you!

Also, it is very hypocritical to belittle anyone who different then you. On Meghan's note, Isn't that why the holocaust happened? Why are you bashing people who are different than you when that is the same exact thing that killed 6 million of your own people?!

Lastly, reading that your son is quadriplegic, would you want people to bash him and say the same about him that you are saying to others? Get rid of anyone who is different? How would you react when reading "kill all the crips!"? When writing something so demonic, think about your own family and situations as well.

One more thing, people are infuriated at some of the things you write. If I were you I would take down my personal information such as my address, if you want to protect your family!

Oh, and again one more thing; If you don't want us classmates to read this blog, why were you so eager to give out your blog site card?! :-)

Google the guy, he is all over the web. I haven't seen a single source suggest that the reports (all of which are completely consistent with each other) are anything but completely factual. It isn't worth my time to dig any further. I think it's safe to say I am right unless you can show any evidence to the contrary..

what you wrote to meghan that a strictly private school would be better for her... what about you? our class is full of all different types of people. to know that you think lowly of us is very offensive and we may feel the need to report YOU to the authorities, not the other way around! don't invite people to read your blog and then threaten to report them because they don't like what you wrote!!!

As far as my classmates go, I don't remember blogging about anyone and frankly I have no interest in what anyone does off campus.

However again, let's say someone comes to a school with a bumper sticker that says "Abortion is Murder". Or "Jesus Saves". Or "Change We Can Believe In". I don't think it would be wise for another student to run out and call him an asshole.

Exactly our point! How do you know none of us are gay? You posting this and allowing us to read it is "running out and calling him an asshole!" Like you said, NOT WISE!!! You said it! End of disscussion!

NC, you must bear something in mind. To me, the highest priority is honesty, not popularity.

When I converted to Judaism at age 16, I assumed at the time that gentiles would dislike me because I am a Jew and Jews would dislike me because my parents were gentiles. I just didn't, and still don't, care.

In reality, it hasn't been so bad. I have a few friends. However it's been bad enough, believe me.

If I could have one sentence written on my tombstone, I would want it to be "Here lies an honest man." Being honest gives me more satisfaction than being elected class president, or company president or being best friends with every random person. In fact, I feel that a dishonest life would not be worth living.

In summary, all traditional monotheists, Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Mormon and Orthodox Jews consider sodomy to be a very grave sin. This is a tradition stretching back several thousand years. Sodomy was illegal in many American states until 2003 and still is in the US military.

This post is hardly an off the wall, extremist idea. Probably about a billion people would basically agree with it.

And yet your idea is morally abhorrent to as many, if not more, people. Your idea opposes basic human rights, justice, and peace.

The people who stand with you, who agree, are not the people you want standing with you. They are the very people who incarcerated others in concentration camps, ghettos, and poverty. they are the people who put children, men, and women alive in crematoria. They are the people who tortured dissenters and burned them at stakes.

Perhaps if people in the government had addressed AIDS/HIV sooner, instead of letting the "gay cancer" go, then the impact of it would have been far lessened. Ronald Reagan famously hesitated as long as possible to make AIDS/HIV any sort of priority.

Maybe if homosexuality had more accepted in mainstream society then some of the early conditions that allowed AIDS/HIV to spread would also have lessened. Uptight America wanted homosexuality hidden, unknown, and vilified.

I think humanity would have been better off if people were more willing to help other human beings and less given to bigotry.

Your comment seems to me an "end justifies the means" argument. If unfair laws had been enforced, then AIDS/HIV would not have been as bad. My argument is that unfair laws are unfair and contrary to the purpose of the US.

What about heroin and cocaine? Isn't it outrageous that drug addicts human rights are being violated?

You know addiction also has a strong hereditary component; addicts to a great extent are born not made. How dare you or anyone tell me what substances I may or may not inject into my body? Where is your humanity?

But anyway, the point is, that everyone realizes that it's completely reasonable and fair to prevent people from doing things which will be harmful to themselves and indirectly to others.

You aren't allowed to kill yourself. If you stand on a ledge ready to jump the police are entitled and obligated to run over, grab you and lock you in a mental ward until a psychiatrist decides you are not suicidal.

I just want to let it be known that anyone can update wikipedia articles with whatever information they choose, so if you are going to try to back up stupid arguments then I suggest finding a more legitimate site.

Second, Catholics do not believe homosexuality is a sin. Acting on your homosexuality would be having sex outside of a marriage (which is a sin), only because homosexuals are not allowed to legally marry currently.

I would not make threats about reporting your fellow classmates to school administration when you live in a glass house. You have made, and I'm sure will continue to, make numerous inappropriate comments in the classroom setting that have no place in the professional nursing world.

Jews also don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I am not homophobic (which means fear of homosexuals, which is silly) I am anti-sodomy. As are all traditional monotheists.

As a publicly funded school, it would be illegal for BOCES to discriminate against Orthodox Jews. If a student harasses Orthodox Jews because of their religion, those Jews could complain to the administration. If the administration did not take action to stop the harassment, the school could be sued and I suppose face possible criminal penalties.

I do however wish to thank (and I mean this sincerely) Meghan E Coughlan for telling me explicitly above that she hates me. I know that there are people who don't like me, however usually people are sneaky about it and it's harder to protect oneself. Thanks.

Wikidpedia is probably the best reference material open to the public, although of course it can be wrong or biased. www.conservapedia.com is pretty interesting.

It also seems to me by the way that the Nazi persecution of homosexuals

has been exaggerated. Perhaps 10,000 homosexuals died in concentration camps as a result of harsh treatment (never gassing or mass execution) out of 50,000 sentenced. However, it seems to me that perhaps that many would have died serving in the German Army had they not been sentenced to prison. The Russian front 1942 to 1945 was pretty harsh also.

If you really think the school has no options because they need to respect your religious beliefs, you are sadly uninformed. Religious beliefs and first amendment rights are not protected to the extent you think they are.

You are probably also uninformed about the nursing board and the extent to which they can refuse to issue you a license.

I think that there is no question that if the New York Board of Nursing or Rockland BOCES were to discriminate against someone because he advocates anti-sodomy laws that would be a grave violation Federal civil rights legislation, leading to civil and criminal penalties.

Where could you draw the line? What if someone advocates anti- gun legislation or anti-tobacco legislation; would it be permissible to deny him education or employment for that reason?

In the example you gave, a college simply denied recognition as a student organization to a religious club. I am not currently applying to any college for official recognition of an anti-sodomy club.

In your main post, you wrote "if we followed the Torah's commandment to put to death anyone who had sex with another man, those tragedies could be avoided".

In your first comment, you speculated that relatively few would "need" to be killed because those deaths would scare the others into compliance.

When you talk about your support for anti-sodomy laws, you aren't talking about the more recent laws that were struck down with the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. You are referring to the death penalty for sodomy that existed in the 1700s.

I can't say that a statement isn't hateful just because it is expressed in terms of reinstating an old law. How would you feel about someone advocating the reinstatement of the Nuremberg laws and legalize the killing of Jews and people with disabilities in Germany? Especially if that person was a nurse responsible for caring for your Jewish, disabled son?

By the way, if you look at AIDS on a global basis, it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and would have been a huge problem even without homosexual transmission. It can also spread from mothers to babies, either through the birth process or via breastfeeding.

would not apply to someone who believes in the Bible? Of course, there may be numerous interpretations, however to suggest that the first amendment to the Constitution does not protect someone who believes in the most widely accepted holy book in the United States is the ultimate insanity.

Freedom of expression, even for objectional or extreme views, is protected from government interference or criminal prosecuation up to limit. Hate speech and discriminatory speech, at the workplace, for example, is not only not tolerated, but the employer is held accountable. Sexual harrassment is also a limitation of freedom of speech.

It all depends on how much your speech infringes on somebody else's rights. Your disingenuous hiding behind the bible makes no difference.

The entire "gay liberation" is a bizarre, new phenomena which would have been unimagined two generations ago. Like Communism, it's another brilliant atheistic social experiment which has brought immense suffering to humanity.

Just as an aside, regarding freedom of expression, consider Vincent Bugliosi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi

He has written a book advocating for the death penalty for George W. Bush.

http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

Is he controversial? Sure. Does he have critics? Of course. Will Bush end up being executed? I don't think so. However Bugliosi is completely protected by our first amendment right of freedom of speech.

Which nursing school do you attend?I'd like to tell the dean and I'm sure he'd be very interested to learn about your homicidal doctrine against homosexuals.

Be a man and tell us. Its god's plan for you to become a homeless turd and your wife and children to eat their shabbos meal out of a dumpster. God's love for you is being manifested with Yesurim shel ahava. You don't want to contravene his will, do you?

AIDS originated in Africa, and that is still where the overwhelming majority of deaths are taking place. In some countries, over 20% of the population is infected, and they don't have the same access to advance drug therapies.

It was never a "gay disease" there. There is some transmission via dirty needles, some from mother to child (is anyone saying that G-d hates birth or breastfeeding?), and the rest is spread by heterosexual sex. In many cases, it is spread by a promiscuous husband to a monogamous wife.

First of all, AIDs in developed countries is no longer a big deal. Its like high blood pressure. Take your drugs and your ok. The problem is in undeveloped countries, where many diseases, not only HIV, are widespread.

Second-- the big lie in orthodoxy is masturbation. The rabbis from 1500 years ago made up a prohibition (probably from folklore), based on an out of context bible quote, then embellished the prohibition with threats of all kinds of horrible consequences. This has generated guilt among all orthodox males. Everybody masturbates. Those who deny it are liars. Do you deny it? If you do, you are a liar, too. Do you deny breathing air?Then you have rabbis writing books and rulings about how young yeshiva students can "repent" from this sin. The rabbis themselves masturbate and pretend that they don't. Their act convinces people most of the time, until a scandal is exposed about some rabbi who couldn't keep his dick in his pants. If only he could have just continued masturbating and not whip it out for some young man or woman.

It doesn't make you any more right that many millions of people agree with you. Many millions still hate blacks. Many millions would kill a Jew on sight. Disgusting, bigoted people come in swarms. And do consider your bedfellows: most Conservative Christians have either begun to accept homosexuals or at most push for conversion therapy, leaving you alone with radical Muslims, who would most likely grant you the same sentence you propose for gays. Why don't you take your kippah over to Syria and make some friends, you small minded douche. You'll die just well as Clementi, only you won't be mourned by many millions. You wanna talk about straight rights? You can talk to any woman, flirt even, without fear of getting your face beat in. You can walk down the street hand in hand with your girlfriend or wife unafraid that someone will hurt or kill you for this tiny display. Everywhere you go, you're assumed straight, treated as straight, and allowed the opportunity to talk about straight things. Gays don't have any of those rights. So why don't you take your straight right arm and shove it up your ass.

So why does everyone look down so much on alcoholics? They can't help it, can they? And they do less harm than gays. Drunks just have a different dietary orientation. Of course they're depressed; everyone bugs them about staggering around all the time. We have to respect them, admire them.

Being that you didn't deny it and skirted the issue, you're saying that you're happy to be in collusion with radical Muslims and no one else? I just want to be clear on that. And do share how you feel about the facts. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected by HIV and is home to 67% of all people living with HIV worldwide and 91% of all new infections in children (http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_global_en.pdf).Of those living with an AIDS diagnosis in the US, 42.8% are Black. While the majority of diagnosed cases were transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact (61%), this number is severely flawed, as at least 1/5 of those infected are never diagnosed, and many more are diagnosed through an anonymous or at-home test and they are not counted in the statistics. Gay men, being aware of their elevated risk factor, are more likely to be regularly tested, and thus less likely to unknowingly spread the disease. (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm). You are an ignoramus and are spreading stupid and hate in your wake. Please do vacation in Syria! It will benefit all of humanity.

You clearly think you're so cute with your little "dietary orientation" idea that you've been sharing all over the place. People who are overweight because their bodies require more calories before shutting off the hunger sensation have different dietary orientations, and while they shouldn't be mistreated for their weight, they frequently are. People who abuse alcohol have a disease, as I'm sure you're hoping someone will note in your absurdity, but you miss a vital point. Their disease is classified as the unbearable desire for the overconsumption of a toxic chemical which WILL do damage to their livers, brains, and other portions of their body, shortening their lives. Because alcohol impairs judgement and they knowingly impair their judgement so frequently, they are more likely to drive while under the influence and put the lives of themselves and others at risk in the process. When they're staggering around all the time, they're saying and doing things which they wouldn't do while straight, psychologically and sometimes physically hurting friends and loved ones. Gays, on the other hand, engage in behavior which is safe with very minor precautions. With said precautions, they can engage in these behaviors indefinitely with absolutely no long-term (and rarely even short-term) damage. As long as a sexually active gay man is regularly tested and uses safe sexual practices, he poses absolutely no threat to society. The biggest danger he poses is that after a long night fucking his fiancée, he might be sleep deprived and shouldn't be driving (I'm sure you've been there). The psychological harm related to homosexuals is entirely the invention of their friends and loved ones who reject them as you are doing. The physical harm is typically perpetrated by people like you. You pose a FAR GREATER risk to society than any gay man ever did. You can take your alcohol bottle and shove it right up alongside your arm now.

"Let's say traditional sodomy laws would have remained in effect. On the balance, would humanity be better or worse off? There would be no AIDS epidemic." Well, considering the AIDS epidemic began and reached its peak in the US while sodomy laws were still on the books, your conclusion is clearly FUCKING STUPID. And being that those laws getting shot down allowed for closeted individuals such as yourself to finally get some relief, I think the world would be worse off if they remained on the books. Go. Suck. A. Dick. You'll feel better.

You are correct, you do sense a tone of hostility in my voice. You are also correct, no one believes that homosexuals are a race or religion, including homosexuals. Again correct in that all traditional monotheists condemn male to male anal intercourse. As for your assertion that "gay liberation" caused the AIDS epidemic please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

And seriously, I think acting out your pent up homosexual longings would mak eyou feel much better.

I can't comment on the "sex maniac chasing girls," but I personally think that unlikely. And I doubt you're chasing boys, as most individuals as closeted as you get their thrill beating up on projections of themselves. Live a little already. And stop posting hate speech on a public blog. You could lose a job or get kicked out of school for that...oh wait.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I'm just as supportive of the right of bigots such as yourself posting hate speech as I am of your right to choose Judaism. Just because I don't agree with an iota of the shit you spew doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to say it. But a man your age should have enough life experience to know that the wrong words can have massive consequences. A wise man would think through those consequences and choose not to speak. He would have learned very early the lesson "if you don't have anything nice to say...," and that would have been reinforced by a lifetime of observations of the workings of the world. Furthermore, a "Rabbi" would know the serious implications of Lashon Horah and would choose his words and audience very carefully. Speaking hatefully in a manner which could case you harm is a form of Lashon Horah, as I'm sure you learned on your many readings of the Chofetz Chayim. Please, feel free to keep posting your hatred. And when you lose your job, your wife, and your freedom because of your own stupidity, know that it is all thanks to your childishness.

And its adorable you consider yourself a minority. Which minority status is causing your persecution? Is it your status as an Orthodox Jew? Because I have MANY very good friends who are Orthodox Jews and think your opinions are outright evil. Even the most extreme Orthodox Rabbis I have ever met would put you outside the mainstream. You are a self-made minority without support even from the Torah. Are you registered with the OU? I have some wonderful connections there, and I'm sure they'd be very interested in your blog as well.

Also, I note that you take great pains to deny claims of sexual harassment of women, but I've yet to see a place where you've denied being gay. You've also not denied collusion with radical Muslims. Perhaps the minority status of which you speak is Orthodox-Jewish-Rabbi soon-to-convert-to-Islam self-hating-gay. That would make you a cross between Bernie Madoff, Sabbatai Zevi, and George Rekers. Well done! You are a minority.

You are incredible. You have an uncanny way of not paying any heed to facts, questions, thought, or frankly anything above the reptilian brain's functions. I don't quite care what you think about a crazy man who thinks Bush should be put on trial for murdering American soldiers. I'd share my personal opinion of how any man or woman going to Iraq knew the risks of war, etc., but clearly my "homofacist" beliefs would negate my opinion...open a fucking book for a change; one not written by a moron, crazy person, or a bigot. Maybe in a few years, you'll grow up and address some of what I said.

"That's why I'm so danger and threatening to the pervs infesting our society." Lol. So danger! You are totally danger. Your intellect is so danger to society, I'm scared you might use that big mean brain of yours to misspell me to death.

If I was the slightest bit afraid of you or the truth, I wouldn't be presenting facts to shoot down your lies, suggesting that you present facts to support your side, begging you present facts, to no avail.

Then clearly you sir are blind. Let me clearly put forward my statements and questions in a concise manner that you may see the facts I have posed despite my anger:

1) "It doesn't make you any more right that many millions of people agree with you." This is a bandwagon fallacy. It falls apart if you consider the countless terrifying things many millions believe in. Many millions still believe that Jews would better serve society dead, yet I doubt you agree with them. Many millions also disagree with you, therefore your suggestion that this makes a difference is null.

2) You suggest the need for promoting "straight rights," yet you deny the suffering of gays.

3) Your assumption that gays are the sole cause for AIDS is a fallacy of single cause. Your assertion that it was the decriminalizing of sodomy in the US which caused the AIDS epidemic is patently false, as sodomy laws remained on the books and enforced until nearly 20 years after the peak of the epidemic. Furthermore, gay men are less likely than several groups to contract AIDS due to the prevalence of STD screening in the gay community. Currently, the most likely group to contract AIDS is African American women.

4) Your comparison of gays and alcoholics is a false analogy, as outlined above. You cannot make such an analogy, and if you would like to understand the reasons why, please see above. It is too lengthy to restate here.

5) Despite your supposed smicha (which you make me severely doubt), you seem to lack any understanding of the principles of the Chofetz Chayim and it would behoove you to justify your behavior by his halacha.

6) You claim minority status, yet do not clarify which minority. I have it on good word that you have been abandoned by even the most right wing haredi rabonim, bloggers and otherwise. As such, to which minority group do you claim to belong?

7) You skirt questions, ignore facts, and change the subject every time something you can't explain is presented to you. You call names and suggest motives, but you do nothing to address the information before you.

8) You have not answered to any of my facts or questions.

9) You claim a Shabtai Zvi-like status, calling anyone who disagrees with you a pervert and/or suggesting they are somehow scared of you. Yet you refuse to actually try to prove to them your point of view outside skewed facts, fallacious arguments, and appeals to emotion and ignorance. It would be wise to back down from your rhetoric. You will never get the kind of following Zvi had, and your downfall will be equally terrifying and far more lonely.

10) I have met many gay men and women who, prior to admitting their sexual orientation to themselves or others, were hateful, demeaning, and violent towards gays. They would taunt, call names, talk about how they were disgusting or evil, and sometimes even physically harm them. Your behavior looks remarkably like many of those cases of which I am aware.

Yes, I am enraged. My anger grows each time you ignore a fact or question I present you and instead change the subject or make a snide remark at my expense. I look forward to you responding thoughtfully to each of my ten points tomorrow night. Gut Shabbos.

If there had been no gay liberation movement in western countries, there would have been no aids epidemic. I don't believe that anyone disputes this. The gay community is a filthy cesspool of sexual perverts which has and is causing the outbreak of all types of terrible diseases - antibiotic resistant gonorrhea, mrsa, etc.

The Torah's severe prohibition of sodomy is one more proof of it's divine wisdom.

AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[161] In the beginning, the CDC did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[75][76] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[162]In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[163] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined “the 4H disease,” as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[164] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[162] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[165] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[166]The earliest known positive identification of the HIV virus comes from the Congo in 1959 and 1960 though genetic studies indicate that it passed into the human population from chimpanzees around fifty years earlier.[9] A recent study states that HIV probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969.[167]A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a poliomyelitis vaccine.[168][169] According to scientific consensus, this scenario is not supported by the available evidence.[170][171][172]

AIDS stigma exists around the world in a variety of ways, including ostracism, rejection, discrimination and avoidance of HIV infected people; compulsory HIV testing without prior consent or protection of confidentiality; violence against HIV infected individuals or people who are perceived to be infected with HIV; and the quarantine of HIV infected individuals.[174] Stigma-related violence or the fear of violence prevents many people from seeking HIV testing, returning for their results, or securing treatment, possibly turning what could be a manageable chronic illness into a death sentence and perpetuating the spread of HIV.[175]AIDS stigma has been further divided into the following three categories:Instrumental AIDS stigma—a reflection of the fear and apprehension that are likely to be associated with any deadly and transmissible illness.[176]Symbolic AIDS stigma—the use of HIV/AIDS to express attitudes toward the social groups or lifestyles perceived to be associated with the disease.[176]Courtesy AIDS stigma—stigmatization of people connected to the issue of HIV/AIDS or HIV- positive people.[177]Often, AIDS stigma is expressed in conjunction with one or more other stigmas, particularly those associated with homosexuality, bisexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, and intravenous drug use.In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes.[178] There is also a perceived association between AIDS and all male-male sexual behavior, including sex between uninfected men.[176]

You have addressed one issue presented above, but ignored the fallacy of a single cause. Will you be talking about the other points I raise, or letting ignorance reign?

The thing I don't understand is that considering that so many Americans (wrongly) consider sodomy to be an inalienable human right, then how can you make a law against heroin or pedophilia?

If I choose to enjoy myself in the privacy of my home safely and sanitarily using heroin, why should I be punished?

And if I enjoy having sex with a child, why should I be punished? There is no scientific evidence that a child and an adult cannot have an affectionate, mutually happy relationship. And remember that pedophilia is just as much genetic and unchangeable as homosexuality. How can you demand that pedophiles be celibate for life?

2) False analogy^3: Neither pedophilia nor heroine use can be compared to homosexuality. Pedophilia causes clear and measurable psychological damage to the injured child, who cannot by definition consent. Heroine use is addictive, can be fatal in one overdose, and causes irreparable harm to the user no matter the sanitary standards in use. They can neither be compared to each other, as sex with a minor is an issue of consent and abuse and heroine use is an issue of personally caused physical trauma.

3) Fallacy of a single cause: there are multiple forms of pedophilia which are caused by many factors including trauma, brain injury, psychological underdevelopment, extreme stress causing psychological regression, and perhaps heredity.

4) False analogy again: even if assumed that all cases of pedophilia are unchangeable and that homosexuality is equally pathological (neither is true, but I will temporarily consent to these assumptions), these two are inherently different in that homosexual behavior occurs between two consenting adults and no studies have shown physical or psychological harm attached to such activity when simple precautions are taken, whereas any case of sex with a minor is inherently damaging, as the minor cannot consent and all studies show psychological harm to the child.

5) You have yet again changed the subject and not answered my questions.

I'm just saying that everyone draws the line somewhere between what's ok and what isn't. Because I draw the line a bit more strictly than most Americans I'm suddenly labeled a hater and murderer and I'm harassed by gay Nazis.

1) The first article you shared is by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a clearly biased organization which is using such debate in exactly the same fallacious manner as you did above. Therefore, sharing such an argument only deepens your fallacious argument, rather than clarifying. Share information from an unbiased source if you would like it to bolster your cause.

2) The second article is equally biased, though apparently from the other side. The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy is dedicated to the legalization of drugs and fighting the "war on drugs." Again, an unbiased source is necessary, yet not provided.

3) As for my previous questions and statements? You seem quite afraid of answering to them.

You're harassed because your arguments are absurd and reminiscent of violent rhetoric such as used by Nazis, "Islamofacists," the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, etc. You are free to draw the line wherever you want in regard to what behavior you believe is acceptable, but when you preach violence against any group, individual or state based, you become the Nazi. If you insist on arguing such extreme points, you better be ready to back them up and answer to all inquiries and challenges posed against your hypothesis. If you were to present clear, unbiased information supporting your position in whole, I would at least accept it as logically sound, no matter how much I may disagree.

The same types of arguments used by homosexuals are used by pedophiles and drug addicts, yet no one seems to be upset about persecuting them. Again, it's all a question of where you want draw the line. 50 years ago, all americans agreed that homosexuality was a sickness and a crime. Now that line has moved, and it may continue moving.

Even if these two other groups use the same types of arguments, the are patently different, as outlined above. Most do not promote the death penalty for pedophiles, and all agree drug abuse is a treatable sickness. 50 years ago, not all Americans agreed that homosexuality was a sickness and a crime (Freud, Kinsey, Ford and Beach, Hooker, Military research). The Torah may not change, but science does. You don't have to accept the social norms implied by new research, but it is wrong to spread hate speech based on personally held beliefs and faulty logic.

Straw man again. I never claimed bigotry of any person who has ever hated gays. 50 years ago, most New Yorkers were not privy to the research of Freud, Kinsey, Ford and Beach, Hooker, or unpublished Military research. I highly doubt any scientific research will unequivocally refute studies showing the dangers of your other two examples in 50 years or ever, but in that unlikely case, I will at least be willing to examine their findings thoughtfully. Mind you, the Torah does not necessarily prohibit pedophilia, and drug use is not spoken of, so we cannot know its views there. And it is not newspaper editors who tell us of the non-pathological nature of homosexuality, though they are the ones you show speaking otherwise.

No, it wouldn't and I've already explained why. If you're going to fight my arguments, use an unbiased source (or at least one who's bias isn't clear from the URL or immediately upon visiting). I've provided a clear argument as to my logic and your argument is now, "but, nu-uh!"

1) I've already spoken to the problems of comparing heroine and pedophilia to both homosexuality and each other. I'm sure the author of each article believes what they have written, but an article written for a conservative "encyclopedia," an anti-homosexuality organization, or a pro-drug legalization site is a poor choice, as it is inherently biased and one cannot rely on its sources due to selection bias.

2) I'm quite certain that you are the only one between the two of us who has posted anything from the Times (or any other periodical for that matter). You base your values on a cursory understanding of the Torah, and I base mine on current scientific research. I couldn't care less what any newspaper has to say. Frankly, I find the Times annoying. They are nearly as biased as the other sources you're citing.

3) You are welcome to disagree, no matter how mislead you may be by poor facts and a fundamentalist reading of the Torah.

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...." -Freud

"Zoologist and taxonomist Alfred C. Kinsey, in his groundbreaking empirical studies of sexual behavior among American adults, revealed that a significant number of his research participants reported having engaged in homosexual behavior to the point of orgasm after age 16 (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). Furthermore, Kinsey and his colleagues reported that 10% of the males in their sample and 2-6% of the females (depending on marital status) had been more or less exclusively homosexual in their behavior for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55."

I could go on, but I think you bear the responsibility of looking into the other names and sources I have provided.

Ok, finally an iota of logic enters into your arguments. Although Freud was an atheist, he had no reason outside his research to dispute the general public opinion of his day with regard to homosexuality, so it shouldn't matter his religious beliefs. As for Kinsey, if this source is correct in its findings, that would call into question his bias. You have not disputed any of the others I mentioned earlier, so I will assume you have found nothing with them to dispute. Now the ball is in your court. Do you have apparently unbiased sources for your viewpoint?

It's not a matter of honesty. It's a matter of accuracy. A conservative political group or an anti-homosexual organization is a bad source for trying to prove the dangers of homosexuality (or much else for that matter), just as a liberal political organization (or newspaper) or a gay rights organization are poor sources.

Which sources in particular? We have agreed Kinsey may be biased and shouldn't be considered, and Freud says clearly that homosexuality is not a sickness or vice, clearly opposing your view. Are you speaking of another one of my sources?

And you have yet again thrown up your false analogy, attempting to bolster it with a third arm. Still just as fallacious. I'm tired of your illogical, flawed arguments, lack of unbiased sources, and ignoring difficult questions. I think anyone reading our exchange will see exactly what I am seeing.

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew and I live in Rockland County, NY.
I was raised as a non-practicing Lutheran by my adopted parents and I converted to Judaism at age 16.
This blog as a rule follows the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s. Specifically, I have been very influenced by the recordings and writings of Rabbi Avigdor Miller obm.
Click for more details about me.